UNION OF INDIA Vs. BOBSONS CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.1 had filed various bills of entries for clearance of goods with declared description "Secondary Defective High Speed Drills/Rods". Intelligence report was received that there has been gross misdeclaration in the description, quantity and value in order to evade payment of appropriate duty of customs. Therefore, Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch (SIIB) of the customs department took up the investigation and found lot of discrepancies. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued. Upon receiving show cause notice Respondent No.1 approach the Settlement Commission under Sec. 127 B of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) by filing two applications. The duty demanded in two show cause notices was Rs.2,13,72,356.00 whereas petitioner admitted additional duty of Rs.72,64,064.00. The application that was filed on 21/9/2010 came to be disposed by an order dtd. 25/2/2011. The Union of India through Commissioner of Customs (Import) has approached this court impugning the said order dtd. 25/2/2011 passed by Respondent No.2 - Settlement Commission.

(2.) Mr. Jetly urged that Sec. 127 B(1) of the Act mandates that any importer in respect of a case relating to him may make an application before adjudication to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled, in such form and in such manner as may be specified by rules. The application shall contain full and true disclosure of its duty liability which has not been disclosed before the proper officer, the manner in which such liability has incurred, the additional amount of customs duty accepted to be payable by him and such other particulars as may be specified by rules including the particulars of such dutiable goods in respect of which he admits short levy on account of misclassification, under valuation or inapplicability of exemption notification.

(3.) Mr. Jetly submitted that from the reading of impugned order it is evident that disclosure made by Respondent No.1 was neither full nor true. In such circumstances, Respondent No.2, i.e., the Settlement Commission ought to have summarily rejected the application for settlement.